Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, June 25, 2007 | Reason : Political | print version Print | Comments

Document Row over religion's role in US jails

by BBC

Thanks to Salvatore Mangiafico for the link.

Reposted from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6228854.stm

inmateSupporters of President George W Bush say it's one of his greatest achievements: encouraging religious organisations to help with the provision of basic social services.

The White House has doled out millions of dollars of public funding to these bodies - many of them representing evangelical Christians.

But in one area an effort is being made in the courts to stop the practice.

The "InnerChange Freedom Initiative" has seen evangelicals take over wings of prisons around the nation and set up special courses for chosen inmates.

Supporters say it cuts down repeat offending - but opponents say it is evangelism by the back door, paid for in part by the state.

So far the courts - in an important case brought in Ohio - have sided with those who oppose these schemes. The issue is expected to go all the way to the US Supreme Court.

So I visited a prison to find out what supporters and, crucially, prisoners themselves, make of the fuss.

'Miraculous' change

Bobby Lytle is four years into a 17-year sentence for second degree murder.

room
Inmates who sign up to the scheme live in a different wing of the prison

His life up to now has not been a great success. But he tells me it has changed utterly thanks to the InnerChange programme at Tucker Correctional Facility, near Little Rock, Arkansas.

Four years ago, he says, "I took a man's life." And, he adds, "There is no going back from that."

In his previous life, he says, the slightest disagreement would have led him to violence. "I would have bust you up," he says.

Now Bobby says he wants nothing more than to contribute to the community. Violence is a thing of the past for him.

It sounds miraculous - and many supporters of this scheme would happily use that word.

The prisoners rise up as one to pledge their allegiance to Jesus and the Bible and to their new selves.

This is recognisably and unashamedly an evangelical Christian setting - but there is more to it than prayer.

In a class entitled Authentic Manhood, for instance, the inmates are taught how to treat women and children. They are taught things they never learned from their abusive fathers and disrupted families, and things that occasionally make them weep with sadness and recognition.

The teacher explains the aim of the good husband: to be a leader of the family but to earn that leadership, not demand it. The prisoners nod, they seem to get it.

The first time he attended the Authentic Manhood class, Christopher Elmore says: "I looked around the room and there wasn't a man there who didn't have tears in his eyes."

Chris Gilbert agrees: "If I was to get into a relationship I would know how to treat her - I know how to provide now."

Core values

What, then, is the problem?

Outside the InnerChange wing of the prison you can see the other buildings where the general population lives.

carl
Carl Dawson says it was hard at first to leave the main prison

What campaigners for secular America say is that there should not be a religious test, a religious hurdle, that gets you from the violent misery of the other cell blocks at Tucker into this place.

The man who runs the scheme, Scott McLean, says that this is a misunderstanding.

He denies that there is a religious test. "In fact we have non-Christians here," he says, "and they are welcome to stay in the programme."

To sign up for InnerChange in Arkansas, inmates ideally have between a year-and-a-half and two years left of their sentence. Those with a longer time left before release are accepted if there is space.

The inmates must agree to core values - but those values are not exclusively Christian, Mr McLean says. Among them are integrity, responsibility, productivity and community.

The prisoners themselves tell you that the move from the main jail to the InnerChange wing is not easy. In fact, says Christopher Elmore: "This is the hardest time I have ever done."

critics
Critics say it is unconstitutional for a religious scheme to be run in jails

Carl Dawson agrees, saying the act of coming here, moving out of the main prison, was a struggle for him.

He remembers being hugged by the inmates when he first arrived and wondering whether he should hit them.

Now, he believes the closure of the unit would be a catastrophe. "God knows what we would do," he says.

It is unlikely that any of these schemes will be closed entirely any time soon but in the future they may have to rely on charity.

The InnerChange inmates at Tucker Correctional Facility have a simple message for the outside world: whoever funds it, whatever arrangements are made to keep it legal and constitutional, please keep the scheme.

For them, it is salvation.

IFI operates programmes for men in Texas, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Arkansas and Missouri. Women's programmes run in Minnesota, Arkansas and Missouri.

Comments 1 - 22 of 22 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #51982 by Angieruns on June 25, 2007 at 7:23 pm

This is frightening. You take the population that has MOST demonstrated its capacity for violence, then hook them into the delusion of Christian mythology.

And W O R S E: I have to pay for it involuntarily through federal tax dollars.

Another example of our theocracy's (headed by W) disregard for the First Amendment.

Other Comments by Angieruns

2. Comment #51985 by jonahemery on June 25, 2007 at 7:36 pm

It is salvation based on lies. It is offloading their previous life on a "sinful nature" instead of their own choices. It is giving people hateful views that they are saved while others are lost. It divides, not unites.

The same could be done in a secular setting. The fact that you only get one life, and spending destroying yourself is a terrible waste. Showing the ways of happiness and knowing your place in the cosmos - based on fact, not fiction - could do the same thing.

Just no one is doing it.

Other Comments by jonahemery

3. Comment #51986 by Spinoza on June 25, 2007 at 7:42 pm

 avatarI think the RDF should fund programs LIKE this (but not necessarily this exact kind...), and teach moral values, basic accounting skills, etc... to people who would otherwise be taken in by religion.

If we truly think religion is not only WRONG in many, most, or all of its claims to truth, but also destructive, then what better way to combat it than by opening up a subversive front to accompany our direct attacks?

Provide social services that have no religious connotations whatsoever. Fight for the right to have them in the same prisons as the religiously attuned services.

Other Comments by Spinoza

4. Comment #51990 by monkey2 on June 25, 2007 at 8:10 pm

 avatarI would love to see a secular / Humanist version run in parallel if I didn't feel very uneasy about the use of brainwashing as a tool for reintegrating prisoners into society.

Other Comments by monkey2

5. Comment #52000 by Crazymalc on June 25, 2007 at 9:37 pm

 avatarSecular versions can and do work well.

Here's an interesting question. Would you prefer a deluded peaceful loving man, or a clear thinking recidivist?

Other Comments by Crazymalc

6. Comment #52001 by Spinoza on June 25, 2007 at 9:47 pm

 avatarThat's an uninteresting false dichotomy is what that is. LOL.

Other Comments by Spinoza

7. Comment #52007 by PaulEmecz on June 25, 2007 at 11:24 pm

 avatar"The same could be done in a secular setting."

This is true. The point is that it wasn't being done in a secular setting. There are hundreds of examples of religious groups beginning work that others see as good and start to support. In the UK, many of our charities were originally set up by religious groups.

I have only recently started reading and contributing to these threads, and have noticed a large amount of anger and malice in what people are saying. Sadly, I have seen that dark side of human behaviour among religious believers, and it scares me. It particularly upsets me because it is not rational behaviour.

What is being done in this initiative appears good. For a definitive answer as to whether it should continue to receive funding, I would like more evidence, as any rational thinker would. If the evidence suggests that people are being helped to manage their anger, deal with the things they have done wrong etc. then I would be happy.

Do you really want a society where the government has to decide on funding social programs by investigating the religious beliefs of the people involved, and then making some sort of qualitative judgment about those beliefs?

(My parents escaped Hungary in the 1950s after a failed attempt to overthrow the Communist government. Now, the Communist government is back in power, many of the same people as were in the 1950s government, and it is a blow to any free-thinking people in Hungary. They have another 3 years to wait to get rid of them!)

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

8. Comment #52039 by Shining666 on June 26, 2007 at 2:20 am

"Do you really want a society where the government has to decide on funding social programs by investigating the religious beliefs of the people, involved, and then making some sort of qualitative judgement about those beliefs."

Mr. Emecz, of course not. That is not at all the issue here. No one is interested in the private beliefs of these workers . What people are getting angry about is that, in the process of doing the vital and good work of instigating reform for these prisoners- all paid for by government money- they are indoctrinating them into Christianity while they're at it.

"The prisoners rise up as one to pledge their allegiance to Jesus and the Bible and to their new selves."

This is not about "private beliefs". These workers are abusing their position to win converts for their religion and, to my untrained legal eyes, appear to be pretty blatantly violating the separation of Church and State- a fundament of American civilisation.

Other Comments by Shining666

9. Comment #52055 by jonecc on June 26, 2007 at 3:56 am

This whole exercise is like stone soup. The Christians claim it's all about Jesus, but it's the other ingredients which have been shown to work in an entirely secular context. Religious belief just isn't a determining factor.

Other Comments by jonecc

10. Comment #52064 by logical on June 26, 2007 at 4:33 am

 avatarDoes anyone have very old copies of The Skeptic magazine? I remember an article about religious reasoning rapists do (getting rid of the sinful feel)one New York prosecutor asked about, but I cannot find it on the web.
And the above mumbojumbo - I do not believe one word of it. In my time in rape crisis centre (I suffered a burnout) I had too much of all such sweet lies, and each time I found something out about the rapist afterwards he continued to rape.
My not-so-close knowledge about wifebatterers and -murderers because of the contacts to the local womenīs shelter give the same picture.
And thatīs the less educated only, the more intelligent and wealthy used religious justification for violence with next-to-perfect success of not being jailed in the first place.
Here you have a piece of acting towards the wardens and the providers of programmes for early release. I do not know whether a kindergarden or school can change the young boys (I hope that they can), but psychotherapy works only if the access is provided by a health system BEFORE the man or youth got used to violence.

Other Comments by logical

11. Comment #52087 by Crazymalc on June 26, 2007 at 5:59 am

 avatarlogical said: "...but psychotherapy works only if the access is provided by a health system BEFORE the man or youth got used to violence."

You really think so? You seem to be implying that once a rapist, always a rapist.

And how would you do it BEFORE anyway? "All potential rapist, please stand up and come this way". Seems like a good idea, but impossible in practise.

One of the bravest man I ever met had a long history of violence. He had been in and out of jail many times for violent crimes (though never rape). He also use to work as a prostitute. He is covered in tats and you'd want to walk around him if you saw him on the street. The reason for all of this is some horrific abuse he suffered at the hands of his parents and others as a child. He faced up to his fears, his hurt and his past and now is gradualy moving towards a "normal life".

Other Comments by Crazymalc

12. Comment #52101 by Dunc-uk on June 26, 2007 at 6:38 am

 avatarI am very interested to see if a secular system could work as well at reforming prisoners. For all it's ills, a belief system that can absolve any crime by the mere practise of conversion and request for forgiveness must be very attractive to someone that has commited terrible acts. Couple that with a loving god figure and I'm not suprised that these schemes are so successful. That doesn't make them "right" in any sense, just succesful at rehabilitation. For example, I for one would not necessarily want to try to deconvert the "Son of Sam".

Can a secular scheme be as successful? Can humanist values and an increased understanding of the social contract (for example) have the same rehabilitating effect? I really hope so, but I don't know of any such schemes.

On the other hand, I can see how these religious indoctrinations could be harmful... if the resulting reformed character is meek and mild and even willing to contribute back to the community they harmed, then I find it hard to fault them. But if they take up the mantle of an anti-gay or pro-life stance with all its potential for militancy, then I would have a problem.

Does anyone have any info on secular equivalents and their relative successes?

Other Comments by Dunc-uk

13. Comment #52137 by crazy4blues on June 26, 2007 at 9:26 am

 avatarI work in the US federal prison system as a teacher, and there is an fact a faith-based initiative housing unit in the medical facility in Carswell, Texas. Here is how this thing will fix itself. If there is a perceived inequality among the christians and non-christians in the prison, the prisoners themselves will most likely "handle" it with law suits or even violence.

The other side of the coin is this: any program such as this, be it secular or overtly religious, actually helps to make the prison easier to run safely, both for inmates and staff. The inmates are occupied by a guided activity of some type. It's very pragmatic, actually. The success of the program is really measured on these terms. I would be most skeptical about your garden-variety recidivism study; they are often quite flawed, and almost always keep track of the inmate for no more than one year after release; often it's for only 6 months.

Other Comments by crazy4blues

14. Comment #52152 by konquererz on June 26, 2007 at 11:10 am

 avatarThe problem is that anyone can say they are changed and behave for a bit. But people don't really change. Most people don't do 180 degree turn around, they try and they fail. Many murderers and violent offenders find god in prison, and when they get out, they still go back to crime. This is just another front for W to throw his blatant disregard for the constitution of the United States in our faces and laugh because neither we the people, the congress, or the courts will do shit about it, or can't do shit about it! Its shameful and obscene for this to even be in a discussion, it shouldn't be an issue.

Other Comments by konquererz

15. Comment #52154 by MIND_REBEL on June 26, 2007 at 11:13 am

 avatarIf athiests are so immoral explain why we make up 14% of the US population yet only represent 1/10 of one precent of the prison population.

Religion is irrational, and irational thinking promotes irational acts(AKA crime), FACT.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

16. Comment #52169 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 11:55 am

 avatar
If athiests are so immoral explain why we make up 14% of the US population yet only represent 1/10 of one precent of the prison population.


The question is a philosophical one. Atheists may well behave morally, just as many, many Christians behave in a terrible way. The question is, what does atheism say about how we should behave?

Now, 'atheism' doesn't have a code of conduct, but philosophically, can there be any grounds for objective morality if you don't believe in God? Put another way, can an atheist, with integrity, say that one course of action is morally wrong, or that we 'should' do this or that?

Personally, I don't think that morals, or any statements about what you 'should' do, are compatible with atheism.

Take this example. A scientist believes that one race makes a negative contribution to the evolution of the human species. Natural selection will take time. He decides to give nature a helping hand and attaches some genetic coding to a virus, killing off that race of people in one swift move. Could an atheist say he SHOULD NOT have done that? What possible grounds might an atheist have for such a statement?

Now clearly, an atheist can say that he or she would not have done that, or that doing so may have caused a great deal of distress, but have they any grounds for arguing that causing a great deal of distress is morally wrong?

The logical answer is no.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

17. Comment #52204 by crazy4blues on June 26, 2007 at 1:12 pm

 avatarPaul:

Your mad scientist example would appear to be the god of the old testament, no? As such, it's not really a good rhetorical device, as it can easily be turned back on itself to argue against a belief in God--assuming yo mean the God of the old testament, who is only too happy to give a "helping hand" to the races of people he doesn't much care for. Could one who believes in God say that this is morally wrong?

Other Comments by crazy4blues

18. Comment #52289 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 4:18 pm

 avatarNeil S

As an atheist, I'm inclined to say that this objective-but-relative morality, a work in progress, is all we have, and we might as well face up to it.


This wasn't how the United Nations responded to Nazi war crimes. It simply isn't good enough. If I asked you whether it is wrong to smother a baby born with disabilities, I hope you wouldn't say "I'll conduct a survey". What you're describing isn't morality, because morality is about what should or should not be done. You are merely talking about what people actually do.

their morality is also relative, flowing as it has from the writings of some men who claimed to know the mind of a god at some time and place


You imply that theologians see scriptures as the primary source of morality - this is rarely the case. Natural Law thinking is based on empirical evidence about what constitutes human nature. Situationism is based on a positivist claim that we should love others. Kant's ethical thinking is entirely rational, not at all based on scripture.

These are not bad as ethical systems go. As soon as you go down the cultural relativism route, you haven't just lost the argument, you've given up the right to even talk about morality.

(Cultural relativism doesn't allow us to criticise our culture's morality because our culture's morality is, by definition, good).

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

19. Comment #52645 by kkant on June 27, 2007 at 3:48 pm

PaulEmecz writes:
Personally, I don't think that morals, or any statements about what you 'should' do, are compatible with atheism.


Simple question then: do you think we get our morals from the Bible?

Other Comments by kkant

20. Comment #52966 by The Schuermannator on June 28, 2007 at 7:38 pm

 avatarPaulEmecz writes:
Take this example. A scientist believes that one race makes a negative contribution to the evolution of the human species. Natural selection will take time. He decides to give nature a helping hand and attaches some genetic coding to a virus, killing off that race of people in one swift move. Could an atheist say he SHOULD NOT have done that? What possible grounds might an atheist have for such a statement?

Now clearly, an atheist can say that he or she would not have done that, or that doing so may have caused a great deal of distress, but have they any grounds for arguing that causing a great deal of distress is morally wrong?

The logical answer is no.



My response:
To say the scientist "believes" sounds quite wrong. While it is possible, it is quite improbable that any one race (genetically speaking) could be ultimately detrimental to the human species. But if it were true, the evidence would be overwhelming to confirm such a thing. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Any credibly scientist brilliant enough to make such a discovery would also be brilliant enough to understand eradicating an entire race is also not a positive contribution to our global gene pool: The scientist would probably kill himself first!

Not all atheists are created equally. There are many atheists who haven't the slightest clue on how to treat others morally. All atheists have in common is the non-belief in a god. Atheism is not a religion. I say that because it seems you really want to cluster all atheists into a bubble having their own set of moral beliefs. Another poster responded to you by stating that we are a work in progress, that we're still looking to make things better. Science shares the same goal. As an atheist I don't claim to have absolutes in regards to moral codes and ethics, but with integrity I claim that I do a pretty darn good job of treating people fairly.

The answer to your last question could possibly be no, but what is the logic you follow to reach such an abrupt conclusion? Are you concluding that in order to have moral grounds to stand on one MUST hold beliefs in the supernatural? If that is the case, you are not a logical thinker in the least.

Other Comments by The Schuermannator

21. Comment #52985 by PaulEmecz on June 28, 2007 at 11:28 pm

 avatarkkant

You ask:

do you think we get our morals from the Bible?


That's an anthropological question. We, as a society, seem to be fairly closely aligned with the Ten Commandments.

Are you asking what I think the true source of morality is? I've recently made a few comments about this on a different thread, and can't bring myself to summarise Kant in a nutshell again:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1338,In-Defense-of-Witchcraft,Sam-Harris,page2#comments

I like The Schuermannator's response. How would you respond to Kant? You can't get away with claiming that he wasn't a logical thinker in the least.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

22. Comment #53607 by logical on July 2, 2007 at 8:29 am

 avatarCrazymalc said:
"And how would you do it BEFORE anyway? "All potential rapist, please stand up and come this way". Seems like a good idea, but impossible in practise." plus:

"One of the bravest man I ever met had a long history of violence. He had been in and out of jail many times for violent crimes (though never rape). He also use to work as a prostitute. He is covered in tats and you'd want to walk around him if you saw him on the street. The reason for all of this is some horrific abuse he suffered at the hands of his parents and others as a child. He faced up to his fears, his hurt and his past and now is gradualy moving towards a "normal life".

THERE IS THE CONNECTION, although you did not make it:
All survivors of violence try to speak out about it, most short after the incident, others have months of trying to "be normal". Even children born into habitually violent families do try once or twice to get out there, but usually they fail. Here you have one of the arguments for a functional health system for all - including psychotherapy - plus the necessity for some version of womenīs shelter for children/right of divorce for children.
Predominantly the born unwanted, but a lot more try to get a better life than what they see with their parent(s).
I succeeded, because of the `68 wave of social thinking. I know that I have alcoholics-genes, and I experienced the drunken brutes and the co-alcoholics. It was clear that I do not want to repeat that "life" and not want any children - something that was a new and shocking idea then.
Nowadays the chance of leaving such family background is history, impossible for lack of jobs, cost-cutting in social security, and maligned by the media, too.
Religious backgrounds are about sin and forgiveness, not about real change.

And yes, there is a time factor: the sooner the better the chances, for somebody incarcerated for violence (or woman-version: who has children already, perhaps grew up without the concept of choice) I have not seen any success.
Sorry if this sounds pessimistic, but imprint or traumatisation is as problematic as genes.

And yes, RD: all three, not only genes, are nasty fascists, but not to mention them or profess religious hope does not solve the problems. Having a close look at the facts might.

Other Comments by logical
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: